tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post6144342879662250056..comments2015-03-31T13:08:09.316-04:00Comments on Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: Why Are Jesus' "Brothers" (I.e., Cousins or Step-Brothers) Always Hanging Around Mary? Doesn't This Prove That They Are Actually His Siblings?Dave Armstronghttps://plus.google.com/115516270318198347148noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-5652929586021040342012-12-31T11:51:10.042-05:002012-12-31T11:51:10.042-05:00John 16:13 (RSV) When the Spirit of truth comes, h...<b>John 16:13</b> (RSV) When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; . . .<br /><br /><b>2 Corinthians 4:2</b> We have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways; we refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God&#39;s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to every man&#39;s conscience in the sight of God.<br /><br /><b>2 Corinthians 11:10</b> . . . the truth of Christ is in me . . . <br /><br /><b>2 Corinthians 13:8</b> For we cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth.<br /><br /><b>2 Thessalonians 2:10-13</b> and with all wicked deception for those who are to perish, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false, so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.<br /><br /><b>1 Timothy 2:4</b> who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.<br /><br /><b>1 Timothy 3:15</b> if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.<br /><br /><b>2 Timothy 1:13-14</b> Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me . . . guard the truth which has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.<br /><br /><b>James 5:19</b> My brethren, if any one among you wanders from the truth and some one brings him back,<br /><br /><b>1 John 2:21</b> I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and know that no lie is of the truth.<br /><br /><b>1 John 4:6</b> We are of God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.<br /><br /><b>2 John 1:1-4</b> The elder to the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth, and not only I but also all who know the truth, because of the truth which abides in us and will be with us for ever: Grace, mercy, and peace will be with us, from God the Father and from Jesus Christ the Father&#39;s Son, in truth and love. I rejoiced greatly to find some of your children following the truth, just as we have been commanded by the Father.<br /><br /><b>3 John 1:1, 3-4</b> The elder to the beloved Ga&#39;ius, whom I love in the truth. . . . indeed you do follow the truth. No greater joy can I have than this, to hear that my children follow the truth.<br /><br />Dave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-3865469104496614612012-12-31T11:50:57.413-05:002012-12-31T11:50:57.413-05:00Hi Heather,
Thanks for your lecture on Christian ...Hi Heather,<br /><br />Thanks for your lecture on Christian ethics, safely anonymous, with no one being able to find out the slightest thing about you. That takes guts.<br /><br /><i>I think all of this attacking and name calling of people all claiming to be Christians is pretty revealing. Is it Christian to say something like &quot;I hadn&#39;t even participated in the discussion till you made your dumb remark&quot;?</i> <br /><br />Yes it is. I didn&#39;t call anyone a name. All I said was that it was a &quot;dumb remark.&quot; Big wow. That&#39;s infinitely less severe than what Jesus said about the Pharisees in Matthew 23. This particular person has said far, <b>far</b> worse about me for many years now, and he truly does attack my person and not just my ideas.<br /><br /><i>Or how about prefacing an argument with &quot;as any person of normal intelligence would acknowledge&quot;?</i><br /><br />I didn&#39;t make that comment, so it&#39;s a non sequitur in terms of your criticism of me. But even that you seem to have taken out of context, and made it out to be worse than it is.<br /><br /><i>Before quoting early church fathers on Catholic dogma, how about we think a little bit about how Jesus said in the Bible that one of the greatest commandments was to &quot;love your neighbor as yourself.&quot; Paul also exhorts us to &quot;do all things in love&quot; in 1 Corinthians.</i><br /><br />I agree. Was Jesus loving the Pharisees when He called them &quot;vipers&quot; and &quot;whitewashed tombs, full of dead men&#39;s bones&quot;? But I can&#39;t even say that a remark (which was a misguided attack on my person) was &quot;dumb&quot;? St. Paul uses the word &quot;stupid&quot; twice (RSV) in precisely this sense (2 Tim 2:23; Titus 3:9). St. Peter applies &quot;ignorant&quot; to men twice (2 Pet 2:12; 3:16). Seems they fall far short of your ethical standards, too.<br /><br /><i>Remember that we are identifiable as Christians when we are exhibiting the fruits of the spirit. I don&#39;t believe name calling and attacking people&#39;s intelligence made the list.</i> <br /><br />Again, saying a REMARK was &quot;dumb&quot; is not name calling (towards a person). You seem unable to differentiate between a person and their ideas. You know: &quot;love the sinner; hate the sin&quot;? Ever hear that saying?<br /><br /><i>Just something to think about, especially if one is making a living as a Christian writer.</i><br /><br />That is my living, yes, which is why I try to be very careful in avoiding attacking persons, as I did here. <br /><br /><i>Yes, the tradition of the ever-virgin Mary is controversial, but does it have anything to do with salvation? No!</i> <br /><br />Yes it does, in the Catholic tradition, which is mainstream Christianity. But you don&#39;t want to debate or discuss that. You&#39;re too busy preaching about ethics.<br /><br /><i>Therefore it is not worth all the argument and anger. Somebody is right and somebody is wrong, but being right on every point is not how you get to heaven, thank the Lord!! Otherwise nobody would make it there but Jesus, since the rest of us poor sinners are not so perfect, nor are we omniscient, but thankfully God does not expect us to be so.</i><br /><br />Thank you for the sermon. My job as a Catholic apologist is to defend truth, as it is determined to exist by the Bible and the Catholic Church. It&#39;s worth every bit of effort to defend that, because truth is important, as the Bible constantly reiterates. For example [next post]:<br /><br />Dave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-18440405040947209232012-12-31T02:19:33.040-05:002012-12-31T02:19:33.040-05:00I think all of this attacking and name calling of ...I think all of this attacking and name calling of people all claiming to be Christians is pretty revealing. Is it Christian to say something like &quot;I hadn&#39;t even participated in the discussion till you made your dumb remark&quot;? Or how about prefacing an argument with &quot;as any person of normal intelligence would acknowledge&quot;?<br /><br />Before quoting early church fathers on Catholic dogma, how about we think a little bit about how Jesus said in the Bible that one of the greatest commandments was to &quot;love your neighbor as yourself.&quot; Paul also exhorts us to &quot;do all things in love&quot; in 1 Corinthians.<br /><br />Remember that we are identifiable as Christians when we are exhibiting the fruits of the spirit. I don&#39;t believe name calling and attacking people&#39;s intelligence made the list. Just something to think about, especially if one is making a living as a Christian writer.<br /><br />Yes, the tradition of the ever-virgin Mary is controversial, but does it have anything to do with salvation? No! Therefore it is not worth all the argument and anger. Somebody is right and somebody is wrong, but being right on every point is not how you get to heaven, thank the Lord!! Otherwise nobody would make it there but Jesus, since the rest of us poor sinners are not so perfect, nor are we omniscient, but thankfully God does not expect us to be so.Heatherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06379569226345264119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-16203913575970681662011-08-18T12:04:45.043-04:002011-08-18T12:04:45.043-04:00I agree. I was responding to the objection, which ...I agree. I was responding to the objection, which is of the essence of apologetics. :-)Dave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-55326744161863794722011-08-17T22:07:01.332-04:002011-08-17T22:07:01.332-04:00Why did Jesus&#39; cousins-or-stepbrothers hang ar...Why did Jesus&#39; cousins-or-stepbrothers hang around Mary? <br /> 1) If you were a cousin-or-stepbrother of Jesus, wouldn&#39;t YOU hang around Mary? If only because she had a rather interesting life story.<br />2) Stepbrothers who had no living mother or father would hang around their stepmother.<br />3) Cousins from more numerous households might hang around the household of Mary who had only one Son of her own.<br /><br />I don&#39;t think you can actually PROVE anything about family relationships based on who hung out with whom.nissa_loves_catshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16289000116822109714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-56547605237464790472009-09-06T23:32:01.351-04:002009-09-06T23:32:01.351-04:00Ken: Did you read the book?
Adomnan: Was Svendsen...Ken: Did you read the book?<br /><br />Adomnan: Was Svendsen&#39;s argument concerning the Greek for &quot;until&quot; (heos hou) in that book? If so, I read that part at least. It was cited by someone who refuted the argument, conclusively, on line. <br /><br />Mr. Svendsen is a man who pretends he has a degree when he doesn&#39;t and who can&#39;t make a coherent argument, even when he spends a lot of time on it, as he did in this case. <br /><br />Consequently, I wouldn&#39;t waste my time on the rest of his oeuvre. It&#39;s a prudential judgment on my part, one that I recommend others follow.<br /><br />Given what I know of Mr. Svendsen and his work, I am sure we wouldn&#39;t be missing anything.Adomnanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-42300639367801897022009-09-06T22:09:41.010-04:002009-09-06T22:09:41.010-04:00Did you read the book?Did you read the book?Kenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-72772239961983336262009-09-06T20:30:08.545-04:002009-09-06T20:30:08.545-04:00Ken: A charlatan is usually someone who deliberate...Ken: A charlatan is usually someone who deliberately deceives; so this slander does not apply.<br /><br />Adomnan: A charlatan is a person who claims he has credentials when he doesn&#39;t.<br /><br />For example, a guy who never got a medical degree but neverthless opens a doctor&#39;s office as an MD would be a charlatan. It wouldn&#39;t matter that he had a piece of paper mailed to him saying he was an MD or that he really, really believed, deep in his heart, that he was an MD. He&#39;s still a charlatan. <br /><br />Svendsen doesn&#39;t have a PhD (i.e., accredited, of course), but he claims to. Therefore, he is a charlatan.<br /><br />And I am no more required to &quot;acknowledge&quot; Svendsen&#39;s fake PhD, no matter how sincere he is, than I am to acknowledge an MD sent through the mail from Nigeria, for a fee. In fact, if I did acknowledge it, I&#39;d be a dupe.<br /><br />It&#39;s amazing to me that I must spell out facts as evident as these to you. You Protestant fundamentalists will argue about anything. Talk about &quot;sophists,&quot; trying to make the worse argument seem the better. <br /><br />And &quot;Doctor&quot; James White is a charlatan, too, with his own fake &quot;PhD.&quot;Adomnanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-89206173974410857172009-09-06T15:16:57.736-04:002009-09-06T15:16:57.736-04:00I&#39;d be happy to if Eric would dialogue with me...I&#39;d be happy to if Eric would dialogue with me about it line-by-line. I&#39;ll even make an exception to my rule of not debating anti-Catholics.Dave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-58075496207579875702009-09-06T14:24:40.221-04:002009-09-06T14:24:40.221-04:00I wonder if Adoman even read Eric Svendsen&#39;s b...I wonder if Adoman even read Eric Svendsen&#39;s book, <i>Who is My Mother?</i><br /><br />Did you read it?<br /><br />A charlatan is usually someone who deliberately deceives; so this slander does not apply.<br /><br />He (and other Reformed folks; including me) sincerely believe this is the truth.Kenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-46118253388955997632009-09-04T15:56:31.505-04:002009-09-04T15:56:31.505-04:00I added a little more material to the end of the p...I added a little more material to the end of the post. The original questioner made a comment and I answered again.Dave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-218586938980538082009-09-04T14:41:10.745-04:002009-09-04T14:41:10.745-04:00I just realized what you meant when I read it agai...I just realized what you meant when I read it again:<br /><br /><i>Why do you seem to get so bent out of shape in those situations but come to the aid of someone slandering Dr. Svendsen? Why this double-standard?</i><br /><br />I didn&#39;t come to the aid of anyone at all. I simply noted your own glaring double standards and manifest absurdities.<br /><br />I don&#39;t even agree with all that was said about Svendsen in this thread. I hadn&#39;t even participated in the discussion till you made your dumb remark. But how is all that (Adomnan&#39;s remarks and what I may or may not think of them) relevant to what <b>I</b> wrote?<br />It is not at all.<br /><br />I&#39;ve obviously been slandered many times by your cronies and yourself. Anyone can see that. So what you said about Svendsen applies to me as well, unless we throw out logic. You couldn&#39;t overcome the logic, so you switched topics and descended to <i>non sequitur</i>. Period.Dave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-90854812037987154232009-09-04T13:33:54.750-04:002009-09-04T13:33:54.750-04:00Dave:
I realize you may think that every negative...Dave:<br /><br />I realize you may think that every negative comment we make about you is slander. For the sake of the argument, let&#39;s suppose you&#39;re right. Why do you seem to get so bent out of shape in those situations but come to the aid of someone slandering Dr. Svendsen? Why this double-standard?<br /><br />-TurretinFanTurretinfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-88519893123185154452009-09-04T12:02:27.467-04:002009-09-04T12:02:27.467-04:00My own books must be of truly outstanding quality,...My own books must be of truly outstanding quality, then, since James White says of them:<br /><br />&quot;DA lacks the ability to engage the text of the Scriptures in a meaningful fashion, and 2) DA will use anything to attack the truth. . . . As to the first, I simply direct anyone to the &quot;exegesis&quot; presented in <i>A Biblical Defense of Catholicism</i>, his 2001 publication. The book is a monument to how to ignore context, avoid grammar, shred syntax, and insert the traditions of Rome willy-nilly into any passage you cite. . . . DA thinks himself a modern Socrates, yet, his writing takes wild leaps from topic to topic, inserts endless (and often gratuitous) irrelevant material that serves only to cover the shallow nature of what is being said, and in the end requires one to possess the skill of nailing jello to a wall to be able to respond to it for its utter lack of substance.&quot;<br /><br />(3-28-04)<br /><br />http://aomin.org/BlogArchives0304.html<br /><br />Thanks for the compliment!<br /><br />Eric Svendsen has gotten in a few shots, too:<br /><br />&quot;[T]here are not that many of us who take Armstrong&#39;s writings seriously . . . To correct him always requires discussing foundational issues that Armstrong should have known before embarking on writing in the first place (which is justification for my prior statement that his writings are little more than a bunch of words that have been loosely strung together).&quot;<br /><br />(1-3-05)<br /><br />http://ntrminblog.blogspot.com/2005/01/luke-128-and-roman-catholic-apologetic.html<br /><br />Not to mention your own many personal attacks. Here is but one example:<br /><br />&quot;I&#39;ve recently commented on your lack of integrity. It seems this is going to be an ongoing trend for you.&quot;<br /><br />(8-21-09)<br /><br />http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2009/08/pro-catholic-and-enjoying-it.html?showComment=1250891784493#c2509439147040263820<br /><br />Given the avalanche of anti-Catholic attacks on my person, I think we can safely paraphrase your words, using your logic, and apply them to me:<br /><br />&quot;I think it says a lot about the high quality and persuasive content of Armstrong&#39;s books that dozens of anti-Catholics feel the need to slander and personally attack him.&quot;Dave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-53919372617566384552009-09-04T10:10:59.570-04:002009-09-04T10:10:59.570-04:00I think it says a lot about the high quality and p...I think it says a lot about the high quality and persuasive content of Svendsen&#39;s books that Adomnan feels the need to slander and personally attack him.Turretinfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-496384184766648012009-09-01T12:22:12.531-04:002009-09-01T12:22:12.531-04:00Ken: You were caustic and ad hominem and insulting...Ken: You were caustic and ad hominem and insulting and mean and judgmental. <br /><br />Adomnan: All of these adjectives are correct, except for &quot;mean.&quot; Svendsen&#39;s a charlatan. He deserves to be &quot;judged,&quot; caustically, as such. That is not mean. <br /><br />Ken: The strange idea that it would be inappropriate or defiling or dirty for Mary and Joseph to have a normal, healthy, sexual marriage after Jesus was born seems to have clouded their thinking, over their language.<br /><br />Adomnan: All of the Fathers thought that consecrated virginity was a higher calling than marriage. In that, they followed Jesus, who was of course a virgin and who said that some men (like Him) become eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. And the Fathers also followed Paul who said that virginity was better than marriage; i.e., &quot;I wish that all men were as I am (celebate).&quot; <br /><br />So your argument is not just with the Fathers, but with Jesus and Paul. <br /><br />What a shame it is that virginity is not valued in contemporary America. As a result, our society is inundated by sex and eroticism. The only way to prevent a societal obsession with sex is for society to value virginity over sexual coupling. <br /><br />Ken: When (Tertullian) supports your position, you use him; as do all RC apologists. We can use him also when he supports our position. <br /><br />Adomnan: Tertullian is an entertaining writer, and I&#39;ve enjoyed reading him in Latin. However, as a Catholic, I am not so much interested in his quirky, individual views as I am in his witness to Catholic practice and belief in his day. It&#39;s generally easy to tell when he is reporting what the Church teaches and does and when he&#39;s riffing on his own thoughts. Besides, as I said, Tertullian&#39;s take on Mary as a virgin and as a &quot;woman&quot; is difficult to follow, and your conclusion that he denied her virginity post partum is debatable. <br /><br />On the issue of unaccredited &quot;degrees&quot;: People of course are free to study whatever they want however they want. But they should not claim they have a PhD or any degree unless it&#39;s from an accredited institution. Unaccredited &quot;degrees&quot; have no legal or sooietal standing. Svendsen may or may not be self-educated, but he has no advanced degree. He pretends he does, though, and is therefore a charlatan.<br /><br />Finally, Ken, you&#39;re not making a coherent point about the translation of achim in Gen 13:8. The word is translated into Greek as &quot;adelphoi&quot; even though the kinsmen referred to are not children of the same parents. This is the same situation we find with the &quot;brothers of the Lord&quot; in the NT. The expression is a translation of an Aramaic original that used the plural of &quot;ach&quot;. So it is parallel to the OT example. <br /><br />Perhaps the souce of your misunderstanding is that you don&#39;t see that we Catholics are positing an underlying phrase in Aramaic for brother and brothers of the Lord, using &quot;ach.&quot; Same as in Gen. 13:8.Adomnanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-34738127792097609382009-09-01T11:17:16.253-04:002009-09-01T11:17:16.253-04:00Adoman,
I don&#39;t think you understood my point ...Adoman,<br />I don&#39;t think you understood my point about Genesis 13:8 and 12:5.<br /><br />The LXX is translating the Hebrew word, &quot;Achim&quot; - &quot;brothers&quot;. The Hebrew does not have &quot;son of my brother&quot; or &quot;son of his brother&quot; here in 13:8 as it does in 12:5.<br /><br />It does not mean cousin or nephew (&quot;my brother&#39;s son&quot; or &quot;his brother&#39;s son&quot;)here in Gen. 13:8; even though Lot is Abraham&#39;s &quot;son of his brother&quot;, as it says in Gen. 12:5.<br /><br />They could have used &quot;sungenis&quot;, I suppose, but the LXX translators were seeking to be literal &quot;to the very word, &quot;Achim&quot; - the exact literal one, adelphois, &quot;Brothers&quot;. They were translating, not interpreting. To put anepsios would be wrong, they were not &quot;cousins&quot;, but nephew/uncle relationship, so &quot;sungenis&quot; would have been better, if 12:5 was also in their minds. They would have been interpreting,[informed by 12:5] not translating.<br /><br />In Gen. 13:8 it has the wider application of &quot;relatives&quot;, &quot;family&quot;, &quot;kin&quot;; &quot;fellow-countrymen&quot; as the context of the other people of the extended family and herdsmen and all is there. brothers here, means &quot;relatives&quot;; we are related, kinsman, extended family.<br /><br />My point is that for your point to be valid, you would need &quot;son of my brother&quot; (=nephew) in Hebrew, there in Hebrew in 13:8. Then if they had tanslated the Hebrew for &quot;nephew&quot; (son of his brother) as just &quot;brother&quot;, then it would carry force to your argument.<br /><br /> Since that is not there, they are just translating it word for word. They are not translating the concept of &quot;nephew&quot; (Hebrew) into &quot;brother&quot; (Greek), but word for word, &quot;brothers&quot; (Achim) to &quot;brothers&quot; (adelphois), literally.<br /><br />So, I agree that the Hebrew/Aramaic has no one word equivalent to &quot;cousin&quot; or &quot;nephew&quot;, and has the wider meaning of &quot;relative&quot; in the extended family, or member of the same clan, or even ethnic nation.<br /><br />You make a good point about some of those fathers whose first language was Greek - Ephiphanius, Basil, Athanasius (Coptic was probably his first languagae, but he certainly wrote in Greek); and John of Damascus.<br /><br />Ambrose and Leo was Latin. <br /><br />The strange idea that it would be inappropriate or defiling or dirty for Mary and Joseph to have a normal, healthy, sexual marriage after Jesus was born seems to have clouded their thinking, over their language. They ascribed to exalting virgin-hood over marriage; for themselves and ministers/monks/priests/nuns, etc. <br /><br />But this kind of thinking was only among the Gnostics and Apocryphal gospels before 350s -<br /><br />Tertullian had it right. Too bad for his Montanism. When he supports your position, you use him; as do all RC apologists. We can use him also when he supports our position. He is older and so &quot;to be deeper in history&quot; is to hold to Sola Scriptura. On this point, he actually interpreted Matthew 12 and the passages of &quot;brothers of the Lord&quot; correctly. (which means he also probably understood &quot;heos hou&quot; in Matthew 1:25 correctly.) <br /><br />Of course it is better to get to get a doctorate on campus for several years at an accredited institution; but, the money, time, and uprooted to the location for several years are real life barriers. <br /><br />the modern age, internet, etc. has given us advantages of study that previous generations did not have.<br /><br />What would you say to someone who desires to get a Phd or Th.D, but does not have the money or the time or ability to move their family to an accredited institution for several years?<br /><br />You were caustic and ad hominem and insulting and mean and judgmental. How&#39;s that for more accuracy and simple language?Kenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-16862391859025475932009-08-31T23:48:42.402-04:002009-08-31T23:48:42.402-04:00Ken: This Patristic scholar, Archibald Robertson, ...Ken: This Patristic scholar, Archibald Robertson, and Gwatkin think “On Virginity” was not really written by Athanasius himself. <br /><br />Adomnan: So what? We agree with the scholars who do ascribe &quot;On Virginity&quot; and &quot;The Homily of the Papyrus of Turin&quot; to Athanasius.<br /><br />Tertullian was a heretic (Montanist). Jerome dismissed him as &quot;not a man of the Church.&quot; Besides, his remarks about Mary&#39;s perpetual virginity are ambiguous and not necessarily to be interpreted as rejecting it.<br /><br />By the way, the Bible teaches explicitly that Mary&#39;s virginity was preserved in childbirth. Isaiah&#39;s prophecy was that &quot;a virgin shall conceive and give birth to a son.&quot; Everyone accepts that &quot;a virgin shall conceive&quot; means &quot;a virgin shall conceive while remaining a virgin.&quot; By the same logic and grammar, one must accept that Isaiah prophesied that &quot;a virgin shall give birth while remaining a virgin.&quot; Same subject (virgin) with two verbs. Mary&#39;s a virgin with the first verb and a virgin with the second verb.Adomnanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-61491498951025118372009-08-31T23:24:45.611-04:002009-08-31T23:24:45.611-04:00Carmelite,
Thanks for those excellent quotes from...Carmelite,<br /><br />Thanks for those excellent quotes from the Fathers. <br /><br />Ken:The reason for that is because the Hebrew word is &quot;Achim&quot; (brothers). They translated it literally. There is no problem here with my point. <br /><br />Adomnan: Exactly! That is OUR point. &quot;Brother of the Lord&quot; is translated from an Aramaic &quot;ach&quot; --the same &quot;ach&quot; as in Hebrew and Arabic, for that matter. So, the &quot;achim of the Lord&quot; are the &quot;brothers of the Lord&quot; just as Lot was a &quot;brother&quot; of Abraham. The NT writers were translating an Aramaic expression that was used in the early Palestinian Christian community to refer to Jesus&#39;s kinsmen. <br /><br />Ken: If Genesis 13:8 in Hebrew was &quot;because we are &quot;sons of brothers&quot;; (which is possible, given Genesis 12:5)then your case would be stronger. But, it is not. You failed.<br /><br />Adomnan: Ken, this makes no sense whatsoever. Genesis 13:8 doesn&#39;t have &quot;sons of brothers,&quot; but just &quot;brothers&quot; (achim). What are you talking about?<br /><br />Ken: My point was in the NT. Give me a NT clear example. <br /><br />Adomnan: We did. Every mention of &quot;brothers of the Lord&quot; in the NT is an example.<br /><br />Besides, as any person of normal intelligence would acknowledge, if &quot;ach&quot; in Hebrew could be translated as &quot;adelphos&quot; in the Greek of the 3rd century BC even though it meant nephew or cousin, then &quot;ach&quot; in Aramaic (same word as Hebrew) could be translated as &quot;adelphos&quot; in 1st-century Greek, even though it meant cousin in some cases. Certainly, you&#39;re not going to suggest that &quot;adelphos&quot; became more restricted in meaning from 250 BC (the Septuagint) to 50 AD (Paul)? I&#39;d like to see you prove that! <br /><br />What makes your assertions so arrogant and so presumptuous is that you ignore the fact that many of the Fathers that Carmelite cited spoke Greek as their native language. They knew that the &quot;brothers of the Lord&quot; weren&#39;t Mary&#39;s sons. They didn&#39;t automatically infer from the word &quot;adelphoi&quot; that Mary had other children besides Jesus. In fact, they denied it vigorously. <br /><br />And yet you are saying that you (and Svendsen) know the meaning of this Greek word better than NATIVE SPEAKERS OF ANCIENT GREEK! That&#39;s preposterous. In fact, it&#39;s sinfully arrogant. It demonstrates a lack of even rudimentary humility. But that&#39;s typical of Protestant Fundamentalists, who are invariably ignorant obscurantists who think, or pretend, that they know it all. <br /><br />Ken: So, you are just wrong; and your attitude is ad hominem against Eric Svendsen, bombastic and a condescending response.<br /><br />Adomnan: Bombastic? I didn&#39;t mix words in describing Svendsen&#39;s charlatanism, but I was hardly &quot;grandiloquent,&quot; which is what bombastic means. Condescending? Ken, if I were condescending towards him, I would have been nicer. Please consult a dictionary in the future before you try to use big words. (See, THAT was condescending.)<br /><br />In the world of decent and honest people, Ken, degrees only count if they&#39;re awarded by accredited institutions. In the charlatans&#39; world, the world Svendsen inhabits, accreditation and honesty don&#39;t matter. <br /><br />If you can recommend real scholars to back up your views, we&#39;d be willing to hear about them. But don&#39;t ask us to waste our time on fakes.Adomnanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-82786647417118490302009-08-31T23:23:32.259-04:002009-08-31T23:23:32.259-04:00Carmelite:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf20...Carmelite:<br /><br />http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.v.iii.i.html<br /><br />This Patristic scholar, Archibald Robertson, and Gwatkin think “On Virginity” was not really written by Athanasius himself.<br /><br />55) De Virginitate. (Migne xxviii. 251). Pronounced dubious by Montf., spurious by Gwatkin, genuine by Eichhorn (ubi supr., pp. 27, sqq.), who rightly lays stress on the early stage of feminine asceticism which is implied. But I incline to agree with Mr. Gwatkin as to its claims to come from Athanasius. ‘Three hypostases’ are laid down in a way incompatible with Athanasius’ way of speaking in later life.<br /><br />On “The Homily of the Papyrus of Turin”, allegedly written by Athanasius – pseudograph, spurious, probably not written by Athanasius himself.<br />http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2008/05/athanasius-homily-of-papyrus-of-turin.html<br /><br /><br />So many other places in Athanasius’ standard agreed upon works, he refers to the Virgin Mary, when she conceived and birthed Jesus, but not “ever-Virgin”, except that one place at Orations against the Arians, 2:70. This seems odd indeed.<br /><br />On the History of Arian Opinions by Athanasius, I could not find any “ever-Virgin” , but only “Virgin”; agreeing with Protestant interpretation.<br />http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxii.ii.ii.html?highlight=ever,virgin#highlight<br /><br />Athanasius’ statement of Faith; not found there either. Seems like it should be there if he really believed that.<br />http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.x.ii.html?highlight=ever,virgin#highlightKenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-70930087209127398142009-08-31T22:42:24.223-04:002009-08-31T22:42:24.223-04:00Carmelite,
374 AD (Ephiphanius)
379 AD (Basil)
39...Carmelite,<br />374 AD (Ephiphanius)<br />379 AD (Basil)<br />396 AD (Ambrose)<br />362 AD (Athanasius) ( I wonder if Athanasius really wrote this; or if this is a later gloss or redaction; as the only other times he talks about this issue (&quot;De Virginity&quot; and &quot;Homily on Turin&quot;) is in spurious works that are doubted as to belonging to Athanasius himself.)<br /><br />461 AD Leo<br />743 AD John of Damascus<br /><br />All of these men had many other great things that they wrote about; but on this issue, they were wrong, and unScriptural. This was a man-made tradition that was sincerely believed, and caught on and lasted for centuries.<br /><br />But Tertullian, (writing around 180-220 AD) is more ancient than all of them; and he disagreed with them.<br /><br />Against Marcion 4:19 -- <br /><br />So his testimony, on this issue, along with the NT Scriptures - 49-69 AD, Matthew 1:18-25, are more weighty and older and &quot;deeper in history&quot;. Newman&#39;s dictum is refuted.<br /><br />see<br />http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2009/08/in-gospel-according-to-john-apostles.htmlKenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-18120989711262298362009-08-31T19:39:53.037-04:002009-08-31T19:39:53.037-04:00The ever-virgin One thus remains even after the bi...The ever-virgin One thus remains even after the birth still virgin, having never at any time up till death consorted with a man. For although it is written, And knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born Son, yet note that he who is first-begotten is first-born even if he is only-begotten. For the word first-born&#39; means that he was born first but does not at all suggest the birth of others. And the word till&#39; signifies the limit of the appointed time but does not exclude the time thereafter. For the Lord says, And lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world, not meaning thereby that He will be separated from us after the completion of the age. The divine apostle, indeed, says, And so shall we ever be with the Lord, meaning after the general resurrection.&quot;<br />John of Damascus,Orthodox Faith,4:14(A.D. 743),in NPNF2,IX:86Carmelitehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10044523182742666666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-80438563184072331042009-08-31T19:35:21.690-04:002009-08-31T19:35:21.690-04:00&quot;[T]he Son of God...was born perfectly of the...&quot;[T]he Son of God...was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit...&quot;<br />Epiphanius,Well Anchored Man,120(A.D. 374),in JUR,II:70<br /><br />&quot;The friends of Christ do not tolerate hearing that the Mother of God ever ceased to be a virgin&quot;<br />Basil,Hom. In Sanctum Christi generationem,5(ante A.D. 379),in OTT,207<br /><br />Imitate her, holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of maternal virtue; for neither have you sweeter children, nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son.&quot;<br />Ambrose,To the Christian at Vercellae,Letter 63:111(A.D. 396),in NPNF2,X:473<br /><br />&quot;Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to His Essence, deny also that He took true human flesh of Mary Ever-Virgin; for in neither case had it been of profit to us men, whether the Word were not true and naturally Son of God, or the flesh not true which He assumed.&quot;<br />Athanasius,Orations against the Arians,II:70(A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:386-387<br /><br />And by a new nativity He was begotten, conceived by a Virgin, born of a Virgin, without paternal desire, without injury to the mother&#39;s chastity: because such a birth as knew no taint of human flesh, became One who was to be the Saviour of men, while it possessed in itself the nature of human substance. For when God was born in the flesh, God Himself was the Father, as the archangel witnessed to the Blessed Virgin Mary: because the Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee: and therefore, that which shall be born of thee shall be called holy, the Son of God.&#39; The origin is different but the nature like: not by intercourse with man but by the power of God was it brought about: for a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bare, and a Virgin she remained.&quot;<br />Pope Leo the Great(regn. A.D. 440-461),On the Feast of the Nativity,Sermon 22:2(ante A.D. 461),in NPNF2,XII:130Carmelitehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10044523182742666666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-80156909572407488062009-08-31T13:27:59.412-04:002009-08-31T13:27:59.412-04:00Adomnan: You mean &quot;used anepsios&quot;?
Ye...Adomnan: You mean &quot;used anepsios&quot;? <br /><br /><i> Yes, in the NT.</i><br /><br />False. The Septuagint translators called Lot Abraham&#39;s &quot;adelphos&quot; even though Lot was Abraham&#39;s nephew (Gen. 13:8) <br /><br /><i> The reason for that is because the Hebrew word is &quot;Achim&quot; (brothers). They translated it literally. There is no problem here with my point. Furthermore, the context is Abraham is appealing to the context of the whole clan and the other herdsmen; yes, I know that &quot;brother&quot; can be used in that way, when it doesn&#39;t mean literally, &quot;son of my mother&quot; or blood sibling from same mother and father, etc. That is not the point. Genesis 12:5 is literally, both in Hebrew and the Greek Septuagint, &quot;son of his brother&quot;. New American Standard translates it as &quot;nephew&quot;, but the JKV, RSV, NRSV, and NKJ all have &quot;brother&#39;s son&quot;. <br /><br />If Genesis 13:8 in Hebrew was &quot;because we are &quot;sons of brothers&quot;; (which is possible, given Genesis 12:5)then your case would be stronger. But, it is not. You failed.<br /><br />My point was in the NT. Give me a NT clear example. As it is, even your OT example is refuted.<br /><br />So, you are just wrong; and your attitude is ad hominem against Eric Svendsen, bombastic and a condescending response.<br /><br />I don&#39;t know anything about his doctorate, but sometimes people can get an advanced degree without having to uproot and move and maybe it is because they don&#39;t have enough money to go to an accredited institution that you would approve of; and also because of time, jobs, moving. It is not always a bad thing to get that kind of a doctorate. <br /><br /> Also, many of the &#39;accredited&quot; institutions are filled with liberalism; (not all, but most are), so it just may be a case of not wanting to have to fight all the liberal garbage every day in classes, and while studying and writing papers. </i><br /><br /><br />So, Hebrew/Aramaic words for cousin, nephew and other kinsmen can indeed be rendered as &quot;adelphos&quot; in Greek, AS WAS DONE IN THE SEPTUAGINT! Get it? Let me repeat: The Septuagint, which was a Greek translation of the Hebrew that was done in ancient times, translated cousin and nephew as &quot;adelphos.&quot;Kenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-59550195271826927032009-08-30T01:06:45.009-04:002009-08-30T01:06:45.009-04:00Ken,
Eric Svendsen is an ignorant charlatan with ...Ken,<br /><br />Eric Svendsen is an ignorant charlatan with a fake &quot;degree&quot; he got through the mail from some Fundamentalist diploma mill in South Africa. (Like he ever spent time studying in South Africa: ha! I&#39;ll believe that when I see the stamp in his passport). All of Svendsen&#39;s books are garbarge, and you should be ashamed of advising people to waste their money on them. And, no, he doesn&#39;t know Greek; he&#39;s faking that, too.<br /><br />Ken: cousin = anepsios (English phonetics)<br /><br />If they were cousins, the NT writers would have used them. <br /><br />Adomnan: You mean &quot;used anepsios&quot;? False. The Septuagint translators called Lot Abraham&#39;s &quot;adelphos&quot; even though Lot was Abraham&#39;s nephew (Gen. 13:8) So, Hebrew/Aramaic words for cousin, nephew and other kinsmen can indeed be rendered as &quot;adelphos&quot; in Greek, AS WAS DONE IN THE SEPTUAGINT! Get it? Let me repeat: The Septuagint, which was a Greek translation of the Hebrew that was done in ancient times, translated cousin and nephew as &quot;adelphos.&quot; <br /><br />I sure hope I don&#39;t have to repeat this again, do I? You DO understand, don&#39;t you? <br /><br />But I think you knew this -- because you&#39;ve been in these discussions before. <br /><br />Ken: So, He is ashamed to call His real brothers, &quot;brothers&quot; and does not honor them with the care of Mary; but gives her to a faithful believer, John.<br /><br />Adomnan: And yet Jesus&#39;s &quot;brothers&quot; (i.e., kinsmen) show up as believers less than two months later at Pentecost, in the company of Mary, where they all partake of the Holy Spirit. So much for your theory that Jesus was dissing them because they weren&#39;t &quot;faithful believers.&quot; <br /><br />The rest of your observations on this subject are confused and incoherent and don&#39;t merit a response. You should edit your stuff a bit before you post it.Adomnanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.com